Stubblefield v. State
Decision Date | 07 March 1979 |
Docket Number | No. PS,PS |
Citation | 386 N.E.2d 665,270 Ind. 421 |
Parties | James STUBBLEFIELD, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). 416. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Harriette Bailey Conn, Public Defender, David P. Freund, Marcia L. Dumond, Deputy Public Defenders, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Kenneth R. Stamm, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant (Appellant) was charged with and convicted of second degree murder in a trial by jury. Ind.Code § 35-1-54-1 (Burns 1975). He was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than fifteen (15) nor more than twenty-five (25) years. He was granted permission by this Court to file a belated appeal pursuant to Post Conviction Remedy Rule 2, and he presents the following errors for our review:
(1) Whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to exclude specific evidence and testimony concerning a pretrial identification of the defendant by three of the State's witnesses.
(2) Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict.
Prior to the start of trial, the defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude specific evidence and testimony concerning any identification of the defendant by three of the State's witnesses. In his motion the At the hearing held on the defendant's motion, the only evidence introduced by the defendant addressing the possible suggestiveness of the lineup was a transcript of testimony presented before the grand jury. The defendant, however, failed to include this evidence in the record, and therefore, we are unable to determine the basis upon which the trial court made its ruling, and consequently whether any error occurred. It is the appellant's duty to present this Court with a proper record. Pulliam v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 381, 345 N.E.2d 229.
defendant stated that the witnesses' identifications were tainted by an impermissibly suggestive lineup conducted prior to trial. At the lineup, each participant was required to step forward and state his name, despite the witnesses' alleged knowledge that the suspect's name was James Stubblefield. The motion was denied by the trial court.
In addition, the defendant failed to object at trial to the admission of the identification testimony. We have repeatedly stated that the failure to object at trial to the admissibility of evidence, constitutes a waiver of the issue, preserving nothing for review. This is true, even where a motion in limine has been overruled prior to trial. Pointon v. State, (1978) Ind., 372 N.E.2d 1159; Harrison v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 359, 281 N.E.2d 98.
We find no error in the admission of the identification testimony.
The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the verdict was based contending in part, that without the tainted identifications, the State's case consisted solely of circumstantial evidence, and in part, that there was insufficient evidence of malice and purpose. Inasmuch as we have determined that there was no error in admitting the identification testimony, we need not address this portion of the defendant's argument further.
As to the defendant's claim that the State failed to establish the requisite elements of purpose and malice, let us first note that in a sufficiency review we will not reweigh the evidence nor will we judge the credibility of the witnesses. Beasley v. State, (1977) Ind., 370 N.E.2d 360. Only that evidence of probative value most favorable to the State together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom will be considered, in an effort to determine if such evidence and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dean v. State
...Detective Mitchell's testimony upon this or any closely related ground. Therefore, this claim of error is unavailable for review. Stubblefield v. State, supra. upon this ground. Stubblefield v. State, (1979) Ind., 386 N.E.2d 665, At trial the prosecutrix testified as follows about a juvenil......
-
Arnold v. State
...constitutes a waiver of the issue, preserving nothing for review. Ross v. State, (1982) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 942; Stubblefield v. State, (1979) 270 Ind. 421, 386 N.E.2d 665. Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in allowing Bailey to testify about statements defendant's accomplice ......
-
Little v. State, 2-1278A419
...Defendant, however, made no objection at trial to the admission of the testimony. Therefore, any error is waived. See Stubblefield v. State (1979) Ind., 386 N.E.2d 665. Little failed to object either to the testimony of L.K.'s stepfather that his wife told him about the incident or to certa......
-
Jones v. State
...been waived by the failure of his trial counsel to object at the time the evidence was actually presented to the jury. Stubblefield v. State, (1979) Ind., 386 N.E.2d 665; Lagenour v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 441, 376 N.E.2d 475; Pointon v. State, (1977) Ind., 372 N.E.2d 1159. This issue has b......